AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 201(1A) would be compensatory in nature and thus, was to be allowed as deduction. While passing the order, ITAT made the following observations: 5. Considered the rival submissions and materials placed on record. We observe that assessee has paid interest on late payment of TDS. We observe from various decisions relied upon by both the parties

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

275 3,93,81,546 2018-19 4,46,29,473 4,75,71,939 2019-20 1,92,54,656 1,53,81,860 Grand Total 13,36,89,277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

275 3,93,81,546 2018-19 4,46,29,473 4,75,71,939 2019-20 1,92,54,656 1,53,81,860 Grand Total 13,36,89,277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow

VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI PITHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ITO- WARD-1(2)(5)), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 44AB of the Act, the Tax Auditor has not given any basis on how the shares were valued at the close of the Financial Year. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that the matter needs a closer and detailed examination by the Tax Authorities and the contentions of the assessee regarding loss

RUPINDER SINGH DUGGAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS Statement- Salary to employees 10,49,754 Form 16 8,98,920 (Section 192) Sale of immovable 32,00,000 Sale deed and property Purchase deed 20,93,414 Purchase of equity share in recognized 14,42,420 Self explanatory from Loss stock exchange the NSE DATA Sale of equity share (setting by the actual - 12,54,275

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

275/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of professional and consultancy fee paid outside India amounting to Rs.3,32,31,388/- thereby observing that the assessee debited huge sum in its Profit & Loss account under the head “Professional and Consultancy Fee”. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly